05-23-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
May 23~ ]984
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Mrs. Doris DeHart,
Volunteer Coordinator
Chief Robert Eanes, Fire
Department
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Admin.
Mr. William Howell, Dir.
of General Services
Mr. Edward James, Dir. of
Purchasing
Mr. Robert Masden, Dir.'
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Env. Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey MuzzY, Dir.
of Community Develop.
Mr. Richard Nunnally,
VPI/SU Extension Agent
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Police Dept.
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budget and Accounting
Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of
Social Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. Asst. to Co. Adm.
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00
a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Robert Armstrong, Pastor of St.
John's Episcopal Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the minutes of May 9, 1984, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Mr. Larry Minkoff, newly
assigned reporter to Chesterfield for the Progress Index. He
stated Mr. Minkoff would be replacing Ms. Pam Wood who had been
promoted to an editor's position.
Ms. Jean Smith was present and stated Mrs. Elsie Elmore and Mrs.
Janice Mack are citizens who truly give of themselves and put
their words of interest into action plans of public service and
commitment. She stated these two members of the Social Services
84-281
Board had been publicly recognized for their community service
and work in the County. She stated that Mrs. Elmore was honored
by the Richmond Area YWCA as an outstanding woman in this area in
the category of governmental services which was based on her many
years of work with the League of Women Voters, with the
Governor's Committee for Child Abuse and Neglect, with the United
Way of Greater Richmond and with the Social Services Board. She
stated that Mrs. Mack was recognized by the United Way of
Southside Virginia in appreciation for her work in humanitarian
service in the community, her service on the Social Services
Board and her personal involvement in individual needs in our
County. She introduced Mrs. Elmore who was present and stated
Mrs. Mack could not attend the meeting. Mr. Hedrick stated that
these two women as well as Ms. Lucy Corr are three outstanding
ladies in the County who are in positions of leadership which
speaks well for the County. The Board congratulated Mrs. Mack
and Mrs. Elmore.
Mr. M. D. Stith stated that Senators Warner and Trible
established a committee to develop a productivity award for the
private sector and governmental units to show to the community
innovations whereby productivity is increased at the job site.
He stated the County submitted an application through the Fire
Department for the Emergency Medical Technician program. He
stated the County was the only governmental entity winning an
award. He introduced Chief Eanes who briefly outlined the
program. The Board congratulated Chief Eanes On the receipt of
this award.
Mr. Daniel introduced and welcomed Mr. J. Royall Robertson, past
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, and Mrs. Robertson who were
present at the meeting.
4. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
added to Item 9.L., Executive Session, to also discuss personnel
matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and adopted the amended agenda.
Vote: Unanimous
5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
5.A. GEORGE J. CHUDOBA, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Mr. Masden introduced Mr. J. Royall Robertson. Mr. Robertson
stated he was present representing the James River Soil and Water
Conservation District and Mr. Chudoba who could not be present at
the meeting because of illness. He outlined the outstanding job
performance and contribution by Mr. Chudoba for the past twenty
years with the Conservation District.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, George James Chudoba was appointed District
Conservationist for the Soil Conservation Service on February 28,
1965; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Chudoba did faithfully perform the'duties and
responsibilities incumbent upon a District Conservationist for
some 29 years; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Chudoba did announce his retirement from the
Soil Conservation Service on December 19, 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors that George James Chudoba is hereby
commended for his contributions of wisdom, talent and time to the
84-282
interests of Chesterfield County residents during his tenure as
District Conservationist.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby extends its
sincere gratitude for his many years of dedicated service and
wishes him the very best in his future endeavors.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Robertson with the framed resolution for
Mr. Chudoba. Mr. Robertson accepted the resolution and stated
Mr. Chudoba would be honored on June 5th by the Conservation
District.
Mr. Hedrick stated that~ the James River Water and Soil
Conservation District has a direct effect on the County as they
help control such things as erosion and the amount of chemicals
in Lake Chesdin, Swift Creek and Falling Creek, etc. and is more
involved than in just agricultural related activities.
5.B. JUNE AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH
Mr. Hester stated with the increased importance of recreation
services and activities, the Board is being requested to adopt a
resolution declaring June as Parks and Recreation Month. He
stated a similar resolution was adopted by the President of the
United States and the Governor of the Commonwealth is expected to
also make this proclamation.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
designated the month of June as Parks and Recreation Month; and
WHEREAS, Suitable and positiVe leisure experiences are
vital to good physical and mental health and enhance the quality
of life for all citizens; and
WHEREAS, All citizens can enjoy self-renewal in the
out-of-doors through the green spaces and the facilities in our
County parks; and
WHEREAS, Our citizens can fulfill their potential in the
use of their leisure time through the varied individual and group
opportunities provided by the Chesterfield County Parks and
Recreation Department; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County recognizes that the efforts of
its professional park and recreation staff have enhanced the
services available to Chesterfield County residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
hereby declares the month of June as "Parks and Recreation Month"
in Chesterfield County and encourages all our County citizens to
visit our parks and participate in our recreational activities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY hereby expresses its appreciation and
gratitude to the professional park and recreation staff for their
service and dedication to the enhancement of leisure activities
and facilities in Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
The Board requested that the framed resolution be presented to
the Parks and Recreation Department.
84-283
6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS AND CLAIMS
6.A. JAMESTOWN 4-H EDUCATIONAL CENTER
Mrs. Margaret Watkins was present and introduced Mrs. Jo Gates,
4-H Leader for Chesterfield Citizens for the Jamestown 4-H
Educational Center. Mrs. Gates stated that there is a $2,500,000
renovation campaign underway for rehabilitation, upgrading and
expansion of the existing facilities. She stated the first phase
would be the renovation of the sewer system which is an immediate
need. She stated that the Center is requesting Chesterfield
contribute $125,000 as its quota of which $12,000 has been raised
through individual and group projects. She stated this is a lot
of money for the children and groups to raise and they are
requesting the County government contribute $50,000 toward this
campaign and to execute a contract for services rendered for the
children of the County. She stated there are 22 counties served
by this facility and Chesterfield uses the facility twice as much
as any other jurisdiction. She stated that since there are so
many children in the County using the facility, the one week
designated for the County is divided in half with 150 children
attending each half week period. She outlined the cost for each
child, the staff provided, the programs, etc. Mr. Applegate
inquired if this contribution could be over a period of years
rather than a one time contribution. Mrs. Watkins stated it
could be over a five year period.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved a challenge grant up to $10,000 each year for the next
five years, but not to exceed that amount, matching a like amount
from non-governmental sources, that staff prepare any necessary
contractual agreements, that the County Administrator be
authorized to execute said agreement for this purpose and that
$10,000 be appropriated from 1984-85 contingency based upon a
like amount being contributed from non-governmental sources.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Gates expressed appreciation for the Board's favorable
consideration.
Mr. Daniel introduced Mrs. Margaret Watkins, mother of Delegate
John Watkins.
6.B. DRAINAGE CLAIM OF STATHIS TRACT
Mr. Micas stated that in 1975 the Safeway Distribution Center was
developed which provided the impetus for the creation of the
Johnson's Creek Drainage District. He stated this district was
to provided for a unified drainage system which would increase
the developability of that property impacted by the Johnson's
Creek Drainage Shed. He stated that although Safeway preceded
the development of the Johnson's Creek Drainage District, they
agreed to pay their prorata share and design their drainage
system in compliance with the ultimate design for the Johnson's
Creek Drainage District. He presented a map outlining the
watercourse in the area. He stated the original Johnson's Creek
Drainage District provided for a channelization project across
the Stathis tract eastwardly to the James River and the revised
drainage project will now take the water in the Johnson's Creek
Drainage Shed northwardly to the James River. He stated the
attorneys for the Stathis Tract have notified the County that
they believe the development of the Safeway Property diminished
the value of the Stathis tract by $1,000,000. He stated that
staff's analysis recently has indicated that in the absence of
the Safeway project all the water upstream from the Stathis tract
would enter the Stathis property exactly at the same location as
84-284
it does today and there has been no change as well in the limits
of the flood plain on the Stathis property. He stated this
indicates there has been no impact on the Stathis property
developability arising from the development of the Safeway
property. He stated the only change that has occurred is that
intermittent flows through the flood plain have been more
frequent, but there is no increase in velocity so that it would
impact erosion on the Stathis tract. He stated this more
frequent flow is expected as a normal consequence of development
upstream. He stated there is some standing water on the Stathis
tract which is caused by beaver dams. He stated staff is
satisfied that the Safeway development was in compliance with all
standards in existence at that time as well as in compliance with
existing standards and no County action impacted the Stathis
tract. He stated Safeway and Rothsay are currently defendants in
a law suit filed by the Stathis family and today's recommended
action of a denial is a precondition to their suing the County.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the drainage system is installed what
effect would that have on the Stathis tract. Mr. McElfish stated
it would allow for about 80% of the property to be developed
which is not developable at this time. Mr. Dodd inquired how
much in fees had been collected for the drainage district. Mr.
McElfish stated about $100,000 and Safeway paid about $200,000.
Mr. Dodd stated the feeling of this area is that the assessment
per acre is high in this district and is preventing economic
development in the area. He stated that the County has a moral
commitment to get construction underway for this drainage
district as money is being collected and fees being assessed and
nothing has been done. He stated this is one of the most prime
heavy industrial sites in the County and since the event of the
Johnson's Creek Drainage District there has not been the first
project due to fees, economy, etc. He stated he hoped this could
be addressed in the Capital Improvements Program within the next
year or two. Mr. Hedrick stated hopefully in the next several
months the staff would like to review the County's Capital
Improvements Program and the Johnson's Creek Drainage District is
included in that program. He stated this has been included, not
as much as a moral commitment, but because it will be a wise
financial investment.
Mr. Micas stated he had notified the attorneys for the Stathis
tract of this item on the agenda. When the Chairman inquired if
anyone were present to discuss this matter, one member of the
Stathis family was present as an observer.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
denied the claim of the Stathis family that the County's actions
in approving the development of the Safeway Distribution Center
reduced the value of their property by $1,000,000.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel addressed Mr. Dodd's issue, stating he felt this could
be discussed by the Economic Development Committee. Mr. Mayes
stated that a work session would be held on the Capital
Improvements Program and he would like to have more information
on this issue. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this is involved and a
work session would be better.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
7.A. CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
appointed the following people to the Camp Baker Management Board
representing the district/organization and for the term as
indicated:
1. Mr. William Haskins, Bermuda District, April 30, 1985.
84-285
2. Mr. William Suttles, Richmond Area Association for Retarded
Citizens, April 30, 1985.
3. Mr. Elwood Elliott, Chester Civitans, April 30, 1986.
4. Dr. James Keeton, Jr., Clover Hill District, April 30, 1987.
5. Mr. Monty Hawkins, Dale District, April 30, 1987.
6. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Staff & Ex-Officio, April 30, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
7.B. JOHN TYLER COMMUNITY COLLEGE LOCAL BOARD
Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board becauce of employer/employee
relations which exist at Philip Morris, he would abstain from
voting on the nomination of Mr. Robert L. Bryant due to a
possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
reappointed Mr. Robert L. Bryant to the John Tyler Community
College Local Board effective July 1, 1984 until June 30, 1988.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Daniel.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
appointed Mr. Richard L. Hedrick to the John TYler Community
College Local Board effective July 1, 1984 until June 30, 1988,
which appoinmtnet fills the vacancy by Mr. M. W. Burnett who is
ineligible for reappointment.
Vote: Unanimous
7.C. MPO TRANSPORTATION GOALS COMMITTEE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
appointed Mrs. Joan Girone to the MPO Transportation Goals
Committee representing Chesterfield County with Mr. Stanley
Balderson serving as the non-voting alternate effective
immediately whose terms will continue for the duration of the
project.
Vote: Unanimous
7.D. RICHMOND REGIONAL SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appointed Mr. Jesse J. Mayes to the Richmond Regional Solid Waste
Task Force effective immediately whose term will continue for the
duration of the project.
Vote: Unanimous
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled for
this date and time.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.A. SCHOOL ITEMS
9.A.1. CASH ADVANCE FOR LITERARY LOANS
Mr. Ramsey stated the General Assembly had delayed payment on
several literary loans in order to balance the State budget of
which five of the County's was included. He stated the County
84-286
chose to continue with the construction of the projects with
funding being provided by issuing bond anticipation notes against
the 1981 bond referendum which were not used. He stated to date
we have issued $3,000,000 in bond anticipation notes and there is
a need for additional cash between now and July when the State
will be reimbursing the County for those literary loan projects.
He stated rather than issue bond anticipation notes and use up
the remaining $3,000,000 in bonding authority, that the County
advance the funds from the General Fund not to exceed $1,500,000
until those funds are received from the State. Mr. Dodd inquired
which projects are involved. Mr. Ramsey stated Midlothian Hiqh
School is the largest project but the projects are underway and
some completed. He stated these are projects which have been
approved and been under construction. He stated the State is
indicating the funds will be available shortly after July 1, 1984
Mr. Daniel stated he had a problem as there is little information
provided as to the amount of money that has been appropriated,
the funding schedule for cash outlay and return, etc. Mr. Ramsey
stated the County would be trading cash for assets and would not
affect the bottom line or the fund balance. Mr. Daniel stated he
was concerned about several literary loan projects that are on
the docket that we don't have a funding plan for, etc. He stated
he would like to see a plan laid out. Mr. Ramsey stated Board
gave authorization to issue bond anticipation notes so there's no
problem in paying the bills but staff would prefer not to use up
the bond authority for those few days between the time needed for
the money and the receipt of the funds. Mr. Hedrick stated that
if it appears that there would be a problem receiving the
reimbursement, the County could sell the bonds but a problem is
not anticipated nor a risk involved. Mr. Dodd stated he had a
problem with an elementary school that is using trailers and he
would not do anything to delay that project. Mr. Daniel stated
he had a problem with an elementary school that has been promised
other things and has now discovered that there may be a request
for architectural fees even though the commitments have been made
by the State for the project. He requested that someone take
time to write down all the projects once and for all. Mr.
Hedrick stated that he felt a letter should be written to the
School Board regarding the questions addressed.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized an advance from the General Fund of up to $1,500,000
for literary loan projects to be repaid when the reimbursement is
received for the Literary Loans in July or August to fund the
five literary loans for which funding is frozen.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick inquired if the Board wanted staff to gather
information on the other items mentioned today. Mr. Mayes stated
he felt the School Board seems to spend money without letting the
people who are responsible for raising it, knowing what it is to
be spent for. He stated he felt the Board needs to know what the
projects are. Mr. Applegate stated these projects have been
approved for sometime and this is the best financial decision on
behalf of the County as to how to fund the projects until
reimbursement is received. Mr. Mayes stated that although these
projects have been voted on in the past, it would be helpful to
him to see the overall plan. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the
County Administrator should document any school agenda items as
he would any other departments through the same managerial and
financial analysis.
9.A.2. APPROPRIATION OF SCHOOL BOND FUNDS
Mr. Ramsey stated the School Board is requesting the balance of
funding remaining in the 1978 School Board fund. He stated fQr
sometime they have been in litigation and arbitration with the
architects for two of the projects paid for with that bond
84-287
referendum, reached a settlement and asked that these funds be
appropriated to pay that settlement. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appropriated the balance of
$38,749 in the 1978 School Bond Fund to provide payment to the
architect for the Bird and Monacan High School projects which is
the result of a recent arbitration settlement by the Courts.
Vote: Unanimous
9.B. CONSIDER COMPENSATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Mr. Daniel stated that last year it was recommended that the
Planning Commission members salaries be higher than the existing
$3,000. He stated that he understands additional meetings per
month, a comparison of other jurisdictions, etc. was the
reasoning behind proposing a higher compensation. Mr. Dodd
stated the Planning Commission members put in long days and they
will be holding two meetings per month based on the volume of
work, etc. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Board should also see
the background information regarding the increase in workload,
the increase in hours, etc. The Board indicated they did not have
a problem with the increase but there should also be an
understanding with the Planning Commission that they will have to
meet as necessary to handle the cases. It was generally agreed
that this information be forwarded to the Planning Commission
that the workload probably does justify an increase but they will
have to spend additional hours when necessary. Mr. Daniel stated
he felt the County Administrator, the Planning Director and the
Board member on the Planning Commission, should relay this
concern to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dodd stated he did not
intend to accept an increase as a Planning Commission member and
would remain at the current salary through the remainder of this
year.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
deferred consideration of this matter until June 13, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9.C. REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED 91]
Mr. Hodge stated in 1977 the County considered implementing the
Basic 911 as the universal emergency telephone number for fire an(
police calls. He stated that at that time a decision was made to
wait until a later date when C & P Telephone Company could provid,
the Enhanced 911 system. He stated the staff has worked with the
City of Richmond and the County of Henrico, the Police and Fire
Departments as well as C & P regarding the regional
implementation of Enhanced 911 and recommends undertaking this
project jointly. He stated the cost of the system to the County
will be $290,000, it would be operational in July, 1986, the
monthly cost will be $13,000 after implementation and it is
proposed that $.15 per month be imposed to all residential and
commercial phone lines to pay for this service. He stated a
public hearing would be necessary to impose the fee and the date
of July 11, 1984 should be established for this hearing. He added
the surcharge would be assessed for the customers in September or
October, 1984. Mr. Applegate inquired why the fees were to be
collected before the service is available. Mr. Hodge stated the
equipment to be installed will cost $290,000 and all
jurisdictions have proposed to begin collecting that now to pay
for the initial payment. Mr. Applegate stated the consumer would
be paying for this service and not the County itself. Mr.
Hedrick stated this was the way the General Assembly set this up.
Mr. Mayes inquired if the address and phone number will appear on
84-288
the screen at the Center on the Enhanced 911 system. Mr. Hodge
stated the Enhanced 911 system will do that and if the caller had
to leave the home or business immediately they could do so and
the Center will know it is an emergency situation. Mr. Mayes
inquired if the Telephone Company will be responsible for
designing into the system the capability to transmit the
telephone number and address when the 911 is dialed. Mr. Hodge
stated that was correct. He stated that the County will have to
work with the Telephone Company to insure that streets are not
duplicated, etc. but the Company will be responsible for building
the data base. Mr. Hedrick stated that once all the equipment,
the system, etc. is in place the County will have to have the
personnel in-house to manage it. He stated we are confident that
the Chief Eanes and Chief Pittman will handle it appropriately
when the time comes. He stated we will have to educate the
public on the system as we may have non-emergency calls which
will have an effect on the system, there may be personnel and
logistical ramifications, etc. and there may be additional costs
and the Board will have to address those issues in the future.
On motion of the Board, the County Administrator was authorized
to contract with C & P Telephone Company for Enhanced 911, that
the Enhanced 911 implementation be designated as the official
emergency services number, that a public hearing be held on July
11, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for the $.15 per phone service charge to
the customer beginning on or about September or October, 1984r
and authorized C & P Telephone Company to collect the surcharge
for the County each month.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the specifications should be distributed
to the Board so they can review them to make certain all aspects
are considered. Mr. Hodge stated copies of the specifications
are available to the Board. Mrs. Girone stated she felt that the
$.15 fee buys a service and she does not consider it a tax and
she did not feel the Board would embark down the road on a
utility tax in the County. She stated she had a constituent
indicate that once this charge was added the County would add a
utility tax and she did not intend that and she did not feel the
Board intends that.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hodge stated that citizens should realize until this is
implemented they should use the existing numbers published for
police and fire emergencies.
9.D. 800 MHz COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FOR FIRE AND POLICE
Mr. Hedrick stated that both Chief Pittman and Chief Eanes are
present regarding this communications item and indicated that
there is an excellent communications relationship between both
the Fire and Police Departments which is an exception rather than
the rule in most cases and it is a benefit to the citizens.
Chief Eanes stated that he, Chief Pittman, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Murman
and Motorola personnel worked on this in a team approach. He
stated that this proposal would provide a flexible integrated
system to eliminate existing interference and coverage problems
as well as accommodate future growth and needs. He stated the
existing system for fire was designed in 1958 as a single
frequency low band system and the Police Department received
their existing system in the 1960's. He exPlained the systems
further, the problems which exist and other alternatives. He
stated communications have become difficult and sometimes
impossible. He stated communications is necessary for saving of
lives, property, etc. He stated a professional consultant,
Frederick G. Griffin, P.E., had worked with the County on the
proposal and recommended that the County proceed with it.
84-289
Chief Pittman stated he was in favor of the proposal. He stated
the Police Department has problems with interference with
man-made causes, poor coverage for the hand held radio system and
there are no more VHF frequencies available in the area which
would have a serious impact on the growth of the County and the
Police Department.
Mr. Dodd inquired if this had enough growth to carry the County
into the 21st century. Chief Eanes stated it would provide for
growth and eliminate problems which exist now. Mr. Applegate
inquired if the cost outlined was for the entire system or would
additional radios, etc. need to be purchased. Chief Eanes stated
it would completely outfit the Fire Department and that Police
would have 100 new car radios as well as utilize some of the old
equipment which is compatible. Chief Pittman stated they will
replace the other radios in the normal replacement schedule.
Chief Eanes stated the Rescue Squads were approached but
preferred to stay on their current system because it is
compatible with the receiving hospitals. Mr. Daniel stated the
new system will allow the police officers to communicate even
when they are away from their vehicles. Mr. Mayes inquired about
the maintenance agreement for the system. Mr. Hodge stated
County personnel will be trained by Motorola to maintain the
system but while the equipment is under warranty, Motorola will
maintain it.
Mr. Hodge stated Motorola has provided a financing package at 9%
interest over 7 years but there may be a better rate through the
banks and the proposals are out for bid. Mr. Mayes inquired why
bids were not received for the equipment. Mr. Hodge stated that
it was determined that Motorola was a sole source and met the
requirements under State law. He stated this is really an
enhancement of the system that was bid in 1980 for which Motorola
was chosen. He added that the proposal was reviewed by a
consultant to ensure the County was obtaining exactly what was
needed, no more and no less, and that the price was acceptable.
Mrs. Girone stated she had met with the Midlothian Volunteer Fire
Department leadership and she was convinced it is needed.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents with Motorola for a 800 MHz communications system for
the Police and Fire Departments and to accept the best financing
bid that is submitted for the financing of the equipment.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
9.E.1. STORM CLEAN-UP IN MATOACA/ENON AREAS
Mr. Howell stated that the storm of May 8, 1984 did heavy damage
in the Matoaca and Enon areas of the County and the County crews
had been sent to aid the citizens. He stated the job was too
large for the County crews and a tree service was hired to aid in
this clean-up. He stated the Departments of General Services,
Parks and Recreation, Utilities and Environmental Engineering
participated and expressed appreciation for their efforts. Mr.
Mayes and Mr. Dodd stated the crews did go beyond what is
expected and they also appreciated this effort. Mr. Dodd stated
the handicapped people and the elderly were the most helped and
it was very much appreciated.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board expressed
appreciation to the staff of General Services, Parks and
Recreation, Utilities and Environmental Engineering who aided
residents in the Matoaca and Enon areas after the storm of May 8,
1984 and further the Board appropriated $8,000 from the
84-290
contingency account to the General Services Department to pay for
contracted tree service work £or this clean up effort.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.2. CONTRACT FOR PAVING AREAS AT COURTHOUSE COMPLEX
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for Interstate Construction Corporation who
submitted the low bid of $34,185.00 for paving the street between
Social Services and the Health Department and three driveways
leading to Lucy Corr Drive as well as surface treatment of the
Lagoon Parking Lot behind the new vehicle maintenance facility.
It is noted that the funds necessary are budgeted in the General
Services Department and no appropriation is necessary.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR JUVENILE DETENTION HOME
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract for the
design of the proposed addition to the County Juvenile Detention
Home with The Design Cooperative for a fee not exceeding $20,000
because of the emergency nature of the work to be performed and
the time frame for which it should be completed.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Masden expressed appreciation to Mrs. Doris DeHart and Mr.
Dave Reeve in obtaining funding from the State for the expansion
of the Juvenile Detention Home. Mr. Hedrick stated that there
was a large effort on the part of these individuals and our
legislative delegation in having the funding approved.
9.G. ANNUAL ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR WATER AND SEWER DESIGN
Mr. James stated that Mr. Beck, Asst. Utilities Director, served
as chairman of a committee which evaluated all the proposals,
conducted interviews and made the following selections for three
firms for an annual engineering contract for water and sewer
design. He stated the General Assembly has mandated the use of
competitive negotiations and as a result the County has
experienced some delay in engineering services due to the large
number of projects that require competitive negotiation and the
time consuming process itself. He stated the annual contracts
will relieve the workload for the County and also for the
engineering groups and to allow for more cost effective and
efficient procedures. He stated it was staff's recommendation
that the annual contracts be awarded to Charles C. Townes &
Associates, Wiley & Wilson and Baldwin & Gregg. Mr. Dodd stated
concern as to whether or not this would save the taxpayers money
and that the three firms listed were not County firms but
indicated cost is the bottom line. Mr. Hedrick stated that the
changes were a result of the lobbying effort by those firms to
have the State law written in this fashion. Mr. Mayes inquired
if the County would be eliminating competition. Mr. James stated
no as the County will negotiate with these firms and follow the
procedures outlined by %he State and if an agreement cannot be
reached, then they can go back through the formal selection
process for any project. Mr. Hedrick stated this is an annual
contract for various size projects, but they will basically be
the smaller routine projects and for the major projects, the
County will solicit bids. Mr. James stated 18 firms submitted
proposals and staff felt three was a good workable number. H~
stated this is an annual contract but they will also have the
opportunity to compete for other projects. Mr. Applegate
inquired what the cost would be totally for engineering fees.
84-291
Mr. Beck stated there is no estimate available at this time but
there are 23 projects that would be involved. He stated no fees
are involved at this time, only the procedure to negotiate with
three firms rather than 18.
Mr. Applegate inquired if this were cost effective from the
standpoint of time and money. Mr. Hedrick stated it was. Mr.
Mayes inquired if the 15 who were not recommended had a problem
with not being chosen. Mr. Hedrick stated that with the smaller
jobs, there was a cumbersome process and each firm would spend a
lot of time and money for proposals with only one getting the
work. He stated that there is support from the firms for this
process. Mr. James stated the Consulting Engineers Council of
Virginia, Inc. recommended that the County entertain the idea of
an annual contract. Mr. Hedrick stated the County does attempt
to distribute the work among the different firms whether they are
located in the County or not. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt that
if there were judgment calls between County firms and non-County
~irms, it should go to the County firms.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the County
Administrator was authorized to execute the necessary contracts
on behalf of the County with the firms of Charles C. Townes &
Associates, Wiley & Wilson, and Baldwin & Gregg for water and
sewer services design annual contracts for 1984-85.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H. CONSENT ITEMS
9.H.1. FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF INVESTIGATIVE EQUIPMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appropriated $12,500 awarded by the Court to the Police
Department for narcotic and other criminal investigation needs to
be utilized by the Anti-Crime Task Force to be established July
1, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.2. APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICERS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
respectfully requests the Circuit Court Judges to appoint the
following men as police officers for Chesterfield County
effective June 18, 1984:
Raymond D. Ash, Jr.
John T. Ashworth, III
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.3. APPROVAL OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT GRANT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents, accepting on behalf of the County, a
Transportation Safety Grant for selective enforcement
(#PT83-00-001) in the amount of $20,000 for the Police
Department.
Vote: Unanimous
9.I. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION/FEDERAL-AiD SYSTEM UPDATE
Mr. Balderson stated the federal aid system is a source of
funding which is distributed through secondary and primary road
plans. He stated this particular request is a housekeeping
84-292
measure that is accomplished every few years to realign the
mapping for various roads that are within the system. He stated
the purpose is to take advantage of funds that are available. He
stated changes in the plan do not affect what has been approved
through the primary and secondary road reviews. He stated they
are adjustments to allow the County to qualify for the maximum
amount of funding available. Mr. Mayes stated if the funds that
are to come from this source are not affected by the primary or
secondary system, where is the money spent. Mr. Balderson stated
that there is a certain amount of funds available and they are
spent based on a criteria established through volumes of need and
the amount of mileage in the system. He stated as one project is
completed, the system is updated to qualify for additional funds
under this source. Mr. Mayes inquired if the Board would see the
proposal before it goes forth. Mr. Balderson stated the Board
had looked at the proposal through the plans for the primary and
secondary systems. Mr. Mayes stated it bothered him as to what
he has seen for the two systems.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972 required that
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation realign
the Federal-Aid Highway Systems in Virginia by July 1, 1976 on th
basis of their current and anticipated functional usage; and
whereas, the virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation has previously functionally classified the State
Highways in accordance with the guidelines presented in the
"Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Volume 20, Appendix
12, Highway Planning Program Manual) and developed the Realigned
Federal-Aid Systems for Virginia in accordance with the
Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual (Volume 4, Chapter 6, SectiOn
7); and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
concurred with the "1985 Highway Functional Classification" and
"Realigned Federal-Aid Highway Systems" for the County as
developed by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation; and
Whereas, the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation has updated the Functional
Classification/Federal-Aid Highway Systems in accordance with
the aforementioned Federal regulations.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors concurs with the "1990 Highway
Functional Classification" and "Realigned Federal-Aid Highway
System" for Chesterfield County as updated by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Abstention: Mr. Mayes.
9.J. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
9.J.1. PUBLIC HEARING VACATING PORTION OF STONEMILL, SECTION C
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of a
16 ft. drainage easement across Lot 30, Block B, Stonemill,
Section C. There was no one present to address this matter. On
motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a 16' drainage
84-293
easement across Lot 30, Block B, Stonemill, Section
C, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield
County, Virginia as shown on a plat thereof duly
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 43, at page 23.
WHEREAS, Stonemill Associates, has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion
of a 16' drainage easement across Lot 30, Block B, Stonemill,
Section C, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County
Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book
43, at page 23, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated April
29, 1983. The portion of easement petitioned to be vacated is
more fully described as follows:
A portion of a 16' drainage easement across Lot 30,
Block B, Stonemill, Section C, as shown on a plat
made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Incorporated,
dated April 29, 1983, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of easement sought to be vacated and the vacation
will not abridge the rights of any citizen
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of
easement is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public
use.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended and a certified copy of this 'ordinance, togethe~
with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than
thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion
of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title
in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lot
free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the names of
the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Stonemill Associates,
or their successors in title, as grantees.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.2. WATER ITEMS
9.J.2.a. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINES ON POINT OF ROCKS ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for Contract W83-96B/6(8)3967 for installation of water
lines on Point of Rocks Road to Best Backhoe & Excavating, Inc.
in the amount of $57,021.20, based on alternate "B" using Class
50 ductile iron pipe and further the Board appropriated
$62,723.00 from 567 (Bond Surplus) to 380-1-63967-4393 which
includes a 10% contingency.
84-294
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.2.b. PETITION FOR WATER ON OMAHA, CARSWELL AND KINGSDALE
Mr.~ Dodd stated he would like the Board to approve this request
as it is an older area and there are some extenuating
circumstances and he felt that there may be more residents to
connect. Mr. Mayes inquired about the cost involved. Mr.
Welchons stated he did not have the figures at this time but
could prior to the end of the meeting. The Board suggested that
the matter be deferred to allow Mr. Dodd additional time to
ascertain how many more residences would connect if water were
made available. After further discussion, it was on motion of
Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that the Board defer
consideration of a petition from residents in the Omaha, Carswell
and Kingsdale Road area for public water until June 13, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.2.c. EXTENSION OF WATER LINE ON ELMART LANE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
authorized staff to proceed with the extension of the water line
on Elmart Lane and further khat $20,100.00 be appropriated from
567 Surplus (Bond Surplus) to 380-1-64907-4393.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.2.d. CONDEMNATION FOR WATER EASEMENT ON POINT OF ROCKS ROAD
Mr. Welchons stated that this easement has been settled as of
this morning and no Board action is necessary. It was generally
agreed by the Board that this item be eliminated from the agenda
9.J.3. AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T FOR UTILITIES ADJUSTMENTS, RT. 147
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement on
behalf of the County with the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation for utilities adjustments on Route 147 (Huguenot
Road) at Robious Road, W84-88C, and further the Board
appropriated $40,000.00 from 563 surplus to 380-1-64881-4393 for
the County's portion of the water line relocations.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.4. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
9.J.4.a. PURCHASE OF PARCEL FOR COUNTY AIRPORT EXPANSION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute the contract with
Mr. and Mrs. James F. Higgins, Jr. for the purchase of 4.55
acres, with improvements, on behalf of the County in the amount
of $65,000 for the County Airport Expansion. It is noted the
County will be reimbursed for 90% of the purchase price by the
and 5% by the State.
Vote: Unanimous
84-295
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he has some interest i~
property in the area that could be served by the proposed force
main to serve the Woodlake Development and excused himself from
the meeting for a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act.
9.J.4.b. CONDEMNATION FOR EASEMENTS TO SERVE WOODLAKE DEVELOPME~
Mr. Welchons stated the developer of the Woodlake Development has
been unable to obtain water and sewer easements for the
construction of the sewage force main and water line to serve the
development and has asked for County assistance. He stated they
have signed an agreement to pay for all costs involved with these
acquisitions and staff will continue negotiations. On motion of
Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the County
Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the
following property owners if the amounts as set opposite their
names are not accepted. And be it further resolved that the
County Administrator notify said property owners by certified
mail of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the
property which is to be the subject of said condemnation
proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be in
full force and effect immediately upon passage.
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph E. Vaden
Mr. & Mrs. Roy T. Fuqua
Woodlake Development
Woodlake Development
$ 870.00
$1,430.00
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
It is noted the developers of Woodlake have executed a contract
with the County agreeing to pay for all costs involved with these
acquisitions.
9.J.5. CONSENT ITEMS
9.J.5.a. WATER CONTRACT FOR RESUBDIVISION OF HORNER'S PLAN
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W84-89CD/6(8)4892, Resubdivision of Horner's Plan
Developer: Harley S. Hammond
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc.
Estimated Project Cost:
Estimated Refund through Connections:
Estimated Cash Refund:
Total Estimated County Cost
for Oversizing Water Lines:
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 6
Code: 559-1-00556-0000
$ 900.00
$2,734.65
$3,634.65
$13,449.50
3,634.65
'9,814,8~
(Refund through connection fees)
And further the Board appropriated $3,008.00 from 563 Surplus to
380-1-64892-7212 which includes a 10% contingency.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
9.J.5.b. CONTRACT FOR WALMSLEY BLVD., CHIPPENHAM MINI-STORAGE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract: ~
84-296
W84-58CD/6(8)4582, 12-Inch Water Line along Walmsley Boulevard,
Chippenham Mini-Storage.
Developer: Donald B. Heslep, Inc.
Contractor: I.P.K. Excavating Co., Inc.
Estimated Project Cost: $9,200.00
Estimated County Cost: ].,779.40 - Cash Refund for Oversize
Estimated Developer Cost: $7,420.60
No. of Connections: 0
And further the Board appropriated $1,957.34 from 563 surplus to
380-1-64582-7212, which includes a 10% contingency.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
9.J.5.c. CONTRACT FOR MICHAUX CREEK PUMP STATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following sewer contract:
S80-34CD/7(8)0342, Michaux Creek Pump Station
Developer: G and H, Inc., and others
Contractor: S. R. Gay & Company, Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: $545,000.00 '
Estimated County Cost: '$545,000.00 - Refund through connection
fees
Code: 574-1-00556-0000 (Refund through connection fees)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
9.J.5.d. SEWER CONTRACT FOR BUFORD OAKS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following sewer contract:
S84-40CD/7(8)4402, Buford Oaks - on-site and off-site
Developer: George B. Sowers, Jr. & Associates, Inc.
Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: on-site - $35,570.60
'off-site - $21,863.00
TOTAL "~57,433.60
Estimated County Cost: $21,007.80 (Refunds through connection
fees for off-site sewers)
Estimated Developer Cost - $36,425.80
Code: 574-1-00556-0000 (Refunds through connection fees)
Number of Connections: 29
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
9.J.5.e. VACATION OF EASEMENT ACROSS COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County
Administrator to execute the necessary quit-claim deed vacating a
portion of a 16 ft. drainage easement across the property of
Commonwealth Development Corporation on Jessup Road.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
84-297
9.J.5.f. CONTRACT FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for Simmons Hauling Company, for the disposal
of dewatered sludge which contract will be for three (3) years
and a unit price is established for each year for a total cost of
$592,006.77. The anticipated cost for the first year (July 1,
1984 - June 30, 1985) is $184,712.76. Funding for the first year
will be as follows:
$142,229.00 -
$ 42,483.76 -
574-1-11721-2681
574-1-11722-2681
Funding for future years will be included in the appropriate
budgets.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board~'that although he was not
present during the discussion of the consent items~ that he had a
possible conflict of interest with item 9.J.5.c. regarding the
sewer contract for Michaux Creek Pump Station pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act.
9.J.6. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
9.K. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of
the General Fund Contingency Account.
9.L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into
Executive Session for consultation with Legal Counsel relating to
the Chesterfield County Vocational Services Center and personnel
matters pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 (a) (6) and (1),
respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
The Board recessed for lunch at the Airport Restaurant.
Reconvening:
Mr. Applegate stated Mr. Mayes would be presiding over the
afternoon session according to the procedures adopted by the
Board.
Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business, although
not directly related to sales, and requested that anyone
purchasing a mobile home from his company to please advise him in
order that he might abstain from voting to prevent a conflict~of
interest.
84-298
9.M. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS
84SR086
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Frank and Ruby Mangum requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which they own. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 2 and better known as
2621 Velda Road (Sheet 23).
Mrs. Mangum was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to bE
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
pot be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile HOme Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
e
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayeso
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84SR087
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Ethel H. Simmons requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which she owns. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 45 and better known as
2613 Velda Road (Sheet 23).
Ms. Simmons was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
°
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,.
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
84-299
o
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Se
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84SR088
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Edward and Virginia Rose
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 98-5 (2) Bellmeade, Block 6
Lots 1,3 and better known as 10605 Elokomin Avenue (Sheet 32).
Mr. Dodd stated Mr. Rose had been present and had to leave as his
wife is ill and he had told Mr. Rose the Board would hear the
case without him being present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request for a period of five years subject to the
following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
3o
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any exis%ing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
0
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
o
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84SR089
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Ralph and Reba Joyner requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which they own. Tax Map 67-10 (3) Rayon Park, Block 7, Lots 5-10
and better known as 7530 Senate Street (Sheet 23).
84-300
Mrs. Joyner was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobi
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
o
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available,
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile'Home Permit, the applicant sha
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84SR090
In Midlothian Magisterial District, Clifton and Gloria Armstead
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which belongs to Henry Buford, the applicant's
grandfather. Tax Map 15-7 (1) Parcel 30 and better known as
14011 Westfield Road (Sheet 7).
Mr. Armstead was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
®
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
e
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
no__~t be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the
shall be used.
84-301
e
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
e
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S091
In Dale Magisterial District, Charles W. Meeks, Jr. requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to Lewis and Joyce Miles, parents of the applicant's
wife. Tax Map 66-1 (2), Ampthill Gardens, Lots 25 and 26, and
better known as 5733 Cogbill Road (Sheet 22).
Mr. and Mrs. Meeks were present. There was no opposition present
Mr. Balderson stated staff had recommended denial of the request
because of the location of the mobile home and because there was
no indication from adjacent property owners if they were in favo~
or opposed to the request. Mrs. Meeks stated three of the
property owners have not signed as one has moved and could not bE
reached, one is deceased, and one neighbor indicated he would not
sign as he had never signed before. She stated mobile homes hav4
been on the lot previously. The Board indicated since Mr.
Daniel was not present, they would like to defer the matter for
30 days.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
deferred this request until June 27, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Dodd requested that Mr. Poole inform the applicants how they
could contact Mr. Daniel regarding this request.
N. REZONING REQUESTS
83S024 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, C.V.H. PARTNERSHIP requeste~
rezoning from Agricultural (A) and General Business (B-3) to
Light Industrial (M-l) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 48.5 acre parcel fronting
approximately 768 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike,
approximately 900 feet east of Southlake Boulevard. Tax Map
17-10 (1) Parcels 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. He stated the Board had
deferred this request from its April 25, 1984 meeting to allow
staff to meet with the applicant and discuss the conditions and
the Board has been provided with an addendum to the case. Mr.
Jim Hubbard was present and stated the conditions were
acceptable. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated January 6, 1984, shall
be considered the plan of development.
Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground
distribution.
84-302
3e
Se
e
10.
ll.
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved. Further,
all driveways and parking areas shall be curbed. Gutter
shall be installed as deemed necessary by Environmental
Engineering.
Prior to construction approval of any improvements which
drain through Tax Map 17-11 (6) Sturbrook Apartments, Lot 3,
a detailed hydraulic analysis shall be performed to insure
that the 100 year flood plain is at least one foot below the
lowest floor elevation of affected apartment units. (EE)
The proposed lakes shall be designed with retention
capabilities, based on a fifty (50) year storm and a ten
(10) year release rate. (EE)
The existing earth bank along the eastern property line
adjacent to Residential (R-7) zoning shall be reshaped and
stabilized. The side slopes of the berm shall not exceed
2:1. If the applicant cannot obtain authorization from the
adjacent property owners to the east to perform necessary
off-site improvements, the Commission may modify this
condition through schematic plan approval to require
construction of the berm in accordance with more stringent
criteria. The berm shall be landscaped with ground cover
and evergreen plantings of sufficient density to screen thi~
development from the adjacent residential uses to the east.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan for any site
which borders this buffer, a grading and landscaping plan
depicting the requirements of this condition shall be
submitted and approved. Installation of the berm and buffe]
may occur in conjunction with development phasing.
In addition to the proposed extension of Johnston Willis
Drive, three (3) other access points shall be permitted to
Route 60. One (1) access shall be located along the eastern
property line and one (1) along the western property line.
These two (2) entrances shall be designed to allow shared
access with future development on adjacent properties. The
third access shall be located between the proposed Johnston
Willis Drive and the western property line and shall be
designed as an entrance only. The Planning Commission shall
approve the exact location of the third access, which shall
generally comply with the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and
Associates, dated May 21 1984 through schematic plan
approval. ' '
Johnston Willis Drive shall have a minimum right of way of
sixty (60) feet. All other public roads shall have a right
of way of sixty (60) feet unless road and drainage plans are
submitted and approved by the Planning Department showing
that the pavement widths, curb and gutter, as specified
herein, and utilities can be accommodated in a lesser right
of way. Dedication of right of way shall be accomplished
through the recordation of subdivision plats and shall be
accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permit
abutting such roadway.
Except where stated otherwise herein, all public roads shall
be designed and constructed with a minimum pavement width of
forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the
divided median section of Johnston Willis Drive shall be
constructed to VDH&T standards. Prior to the issuance of
the occupancy permit for Dick Strauss Ford, Johnston Willis
Drive shall be constructed to VDH&T standards to the
southern property line.
Prior to schematic plan approval, the horizontal alignmeht
of the following improvements shall be approved by the
Planning Department, Environmental Engineering, and VDH&T:
84-303
12.
13.
14.
15.
a®
Intersection of Johnston Willis D~ive-Route 60 to in-
clude a four (4) lane typical section for Johnston
Willis Drive within 1,800 feet of Route 60. There
shall be no access to Johnston Willis Drive within 165
feet of Route 60;
Intersection of the east and west driveways with Route
6O;
Ce
Turn lanes and curb and gutter along the entire Route
60 frontage;
de
Left turn lane on the westbound side of Route 60 at the
existing crossover with Johnston Willis Drive.
(Note: These conditions may require relocation/adjustment
of existing traffic signal poles and utility lines.)
Prior to schematic plan approval for any site within Tax Map
17-10 (1) Parcel 15, a soils engineering report shall be
submitted to the Planning Department which shall verify that
there is no illegal fill material (i.e., any material other
than dirt, stone, rock, etc.) located on the property. If
illegal material is found, it shall be removed from the
property or the report shall certify the suitability of
construction over the illegal fill material.
Prior to the transfer of any property where fill activity
has occurred, a soil engineering analysis shall be performed
for the property to be sold. This analysis shall be
recorded with the deed. Should the analysis reveal
existence of fill material, certified suitability reports
for buildings and parking shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the release of a building permit.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
setback along Route 60 shall be granted. Within this
setback, a three (3) foot high undulating berm shall be
installed and landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs.
In conjunction with schematic plan submission for each site
~ronting Route 60, a landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval.
In addition to Light Industrial (M-i) uses, all General
Business (B-3) uses shall be permitted within 800 feet of
Route 60. The remaining property may be developed for Light
Industrial (M-l) uses plus the following use exceptions:
Wholesale greenhouses; carpenter and cabinet shops; contrac-
tor's offices and display rooms; electrical, plumbing and/or
heating shops - sales and service; fraternal, philanthropic
and charitable uses; health clubs; laboratories; printing
shops; repair services (except of automobile); schools -
commercial, trade, music, dance, business, vocational and
training; tool and equipment rental; communication studios
and stations (not towers); cocktail lounges, dining halls
and night clubs; contractor's shop; feed, seed, fuel and ice
sales; recreational establishments, indoor; utility trailer
and truck rental; and veterinary hospital, boarding kennels
or clinics, exclusive of outside runs. Outside storage
areas shall be restricted to that area within 800 feet of
Route 60 and outside storage, except automobiles shall be
screened from public roads and adjacent residential
development. A screening plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
in conjunction with schematic plan review of any site with
outside storage areas.
84-304
17.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the twenty-five (25) foo~
interior side yard setback requirement shall be granted.
18.
Within the northern 800 feet of Route 60, exterior lighting
shall not exceed a height of forty (40) feet. Exterior
lighting for the remainder of the property shall not exceed
a height of fifteen (15) feet. Lighting shall be positione~
so as not to project into adjacent properties or Route 60.
19.
Driveways and parking areas for sites located within 800
feet of Route 60 shall be designed to permit vehicles to
travel between individual sites without traveling along
public roads. This condition may be modified by the
Planning Commission through schematic plan review.
20. SIGNS
Se
One sign, not to exceed 100 square feet in area, shall
be permitted along Route 60 identifying the industrial
park and tenants therein. This sign may be
illuminated, but may only be luminous if the signfield
is opaque with translucent letters.
0
Two (2) additional freestanding signs shall be
permitted along Route 60, one (1) east of and one (1)
west of Johnston Willis Drive. These signs shall be
for the purpose of identifying the business
establishments which front Route 60. Neither sign
shall exceed an aggregate area of 150 square feet or a
height of thirty (30) feet. These signs may be
illuminated, but shall only be luminous if the
signfield is opaque with translucent letters.
Co
Ail other signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning
Ordinance for Light Industrial (M-l) uses. With the
exception of the freestanding signs along Route 60 and
directional signs, no freestanding sign shall be
positioned to be visible from Route 60. Further, signs
shall not be visible to the adjacent residential
property to the east.
de
Ail signs shall be similar in color, design and
lighting.
eo
Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package showing
typical signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval.
And further the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
No grading or other work on the property to be zoned shall
affect the lake in the Southport Industrial Park - Section I
in an adverse manner.
No drainage or runoff from the property to be zoned shall be
deposited on the property in Southport Industrial Park -
Section I.
e
The developer shall notify the Environmental Engineering
Department and the Planning Department of Chesterfield
County prior to any work on the property to be zoned that
could have an affect on the lake in Southport Industrial
Park - Section I.
Mr. Dodd stated there were some comments at the Planning
Commission regarding the conditions but he felt Mr. Applegate
knew the area very well and that it would be an asset to the
County. Mrs. Girone inquired about the access, the signs and thc
84-305
extension of the road. Mr. Applegate and staff explained the
plan for the area as amended. Mr. Applegate commended staff and
the applicant for working out the points of contention and sta~
he felt this would be an asset to the County.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S129
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LEONARD COX requested a Condi-
tional Use to permit a boarding house (9 tenants) in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.188 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on Light Street and approximately 160 feet
on Bremo Avenue, and located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads and better known as 3310 Light
Street. Tax Map 182-14 (1) Parcel 64 (Sheet 53/54).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request which was deferred by the Board from its
March 28, 1984 meeting. Mr. Cox was not present. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Mayes stated the applicant had not met
some of the conditions and suggested a deferral.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
deferred consideration of this matter until June 27, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S029
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning
from Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) to Residential (R-7)
on an 11.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 770 feet on the
west line of Twilight Lane, approximately 740 feet south of
Elkhardt Road. Tax Map 28-15 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request. Mr. Rowe was present. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Applegate stated he had received sev,
calls of concern although there was no one present in opposition
Mr. Rowe stated this property was originally zoned R-TH, then it
was rezoned to R-7 and then again back to R-TH. He explained
zoning on other parcels which included townhouses, subdivisions,
etc. He stated he had requested deferral previously because of
some traffic problems, drainage problems, etc. which have now
been worked out. He stated he was in agreement with the
conditions that staff had made during discussions.
Mr. Applegate inquired about a tentative plan of development
the number of lots, road and buffers. Mr. Balderson stated this
was straight rezoning and the Planning Commission would review
the subdivision plan once the zoning was approved. Mr. Rowe
stated he would be developing 52 lots and it is currently zoned
for 94 units for R-TH. He explained the road network proposed.
Mrs. Girone inquired if Pocoshock were developed R-7 or larger.
Mr. Balderson stated Pocoshock was slightly larger than R-7.
Mrs. Girone stated she could not remember zoning R-7 for years '
the northern end of the County. Mr. Balderson stated that was
correct. Mr. Rowe stated there were 11 acres and no off-site
roads. Mr. Balderson stated it would yield 4% units per acre
in the adjacent subdivision there is an average lot size of 7,1
sq. ft. with a minimum of 7,000 sq. ft. Mr. Rowe stated the
would have no less than 55 ft. of frontage. Mr. Applegate
inquired about the size of the units themselves. Mr. Rowe sta~
he did not have plans for the units at this time. Mr. Applegate
stated he did not have a problem with the R-7 zoning but he wo'
like to defer this case in order to meet with Mr. Rowe to
84-306
determine the size of units. He stated he was concerned that
there is undeveloped land in the area that adjoin this to the
northwest. Mr. Rowe stated this was acceptable.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred this request until June 27, 1984 to allow the
Supervisor of the area to meet with the applicant.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S033
In Midlothian Magisterial District, THOMAS H. FRANCIS requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a concrete plant
an Agricultural (A) District on a 4.91 acre parcel fronting
approximately 258 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike,
approximately 1,300 feet west of Grove Road. Tax Map 16-11 (1)
Part of Parcel 15 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Pete Nikas, representing the
applicant, was present. He presented a model of the topography
of the area, stated the equipment for the site to mix the
concrete would cost approximately $1,000,000, the concrete would
be distributed to the various road construction sites in the
area, etc. He introduced Mr. Lynn Kanapin of ~he Ross Company
from Brownwood, Texas. Mr. Kanapin stated this concrete
plant would weigh, measure and mix the materials for concrete.
He stated the equipment would be the size of a semi-trailer. He
stated the mixture would then be loaded into a concrete mixer.
He outlined the operation in detail. He presented pictures of
the equipment, stated it would not have conveyors, it will crc
very little noise, has a dust collector built in, is operated by
air pressure, is portable, there is no crushing or vibrations,
the material would be brought in by bulk transport, etc. He
stated there would be only one piece of equipment on the site.
He stated sand, rock, two types of stone, and cement would be
brought in by a tandem truck. Mr. Francis stated there would be
about 20 trucks per day maximum, bringing in the material
necessary for the operation and the stockpile as it is stored on
site.
Mr. Nikas stated the equipment would be sitting below ground
level about 15 ft. which would have to be excavated so it would
not be seen and explained the mixing process. Mr. Poole
explained the location of the site on Route 60. Mr. Nikas
explained that he had discussed the road situation with
the Highway Department and they are proposing an alternate method
of ingress behind the elevation on Route 60 which would give
unlimited visibility for the traffic, they will construct
whatever deceleration lanes are necessary which is on the land
others, and will construct a crossover if necessary. He stated
Mr. Francis will conform to whatever the Highway Department
requires. He stated the cost for on-site preparation and the
deceleration lanes will cost about $235,000 and the equipment is
$1,100,000. He stated the site is only foliage and trees at this
point and it should shield them from any other properties.
Mrs. Girone stated that she had discussed this request with Mr.
Francis several months ago but she thought the site would be us,
as a storage area for bags of premixed concrete and not actually
have raw materials and mix them at the site. Mr. Nikas
the process and reasoning for having the facility at a location
close to a site where it will be used because of Highway
specifications and they expect to be able to use this on such
projects as Powhite, the Parham connector, etc. Mrs. Girone
stated that if this operation is to produce materials for all bf
these roads, there could be a request to expand the site. Mr.
Nikas stated he did not feel this would be a problem because
84-307
only a certain amount of the projects would be allocated to
minority contractors which runs from 10-30% of the total. He
stated there is no other business like this for 100 miles except
for Lone Star. He stated it was very expensive to transport
concrete, therefore, road projects would cost the localities les~
if the facility is located in the jurisdiction involved with the
construction. Mr. Nikas stated Mr. Francis would be purchasing
seven concrete mixing trucks as well. Mr. Francis stated each
truck could leave the site about 3 times a day when they are
hauling with the average of one being down all the time.
Mr. Phil East, with the State Office of Minority Business
Enterprise, stated there are several large highway projects
coming into the County within the next few years, discussed the
specifications for travel time and temperatures involved for the
mixed concrete, etc. He stated approval of this request would
allow Mr. Frances time to set up his operation and establish his
minority business to which he is in favor as their office is
in favor of establishing minority businesses and that this
business would be beneficial to the State and County as well.
Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. East were speaking in favor of this
site or the business. Mr. East stated that he was in favor of
the site since Mr. Francis would have to purchase additional
property if this site could not be used.
Mr. John Rick, attorney for Murray Oldsmobile, was present in
opposition to this proposed use. He stated there are 12 concret,
batching plants in the Richmond area with 4 in'Chesterfield
alone. He stated they will be selling to other contractors and
not limiting themselves to their own trucks with regard to the
traffic on Route 60, etc. He stated he felt this is a heavy
industrial use and it should be placed in an industrial area. He
stated the Board is being asked to place an industrial use in a
commercial and residential area. He stated at the Planning
Commission meeting they were told the highest use would be 36 ft.
and today it is 13 ft. high with no explanation. He stated
it will rest against the hill and you will be able to see the
operation. He stated there is a traffic safety problem on Route
60 as trucks will be bringing in stone, rocks, etc. in addition
to the trucks carrying the material out. He stated there could
easily be 50 or 60 trucks moving in and out a day, there is
visibility problems with a high speed area, etc. He stated the
vehicles moving from one side of the road to the other will cause
traffic problems as they are slow moving vehicles. He stated
there will be dust problems on site with the road to the
facility, mud problems coming out on the highway, material stored
on site, etc. He stated there would be noise problems with the
trucks even if the equipment is quiet. He stated there are
industrial areas in the County for this operation as are all
other existing facilities of this nature. He stated this is not
portable and will be permanent as Mr. Francis would not be
spending $1,300,000 for something that he will move anytime soon.
He stated the problem is not the business but the right thing in
the wrong place. He stated the business could get into
continuous production and if that were the case, all of the
numbers would be magnified. He stated there are laws regarding
minority businesses but it does not only deal with concrete, but
labor, etc. and that a decision as to whether or not the roads
are to be concrete has not been made. He requested the Board
deny the application.
Ms. Darlene Waller and Bruce Shum, owners of property across the
street from the proposed site, were present and stated their
opposition. Mr. Shum stated that the property is not designed fo
industrial use as it is residential and commercial. Ms. Waller
stated other adjacent property owners are opposed because this is
the wrong place for this use. She stated the Stonehenge
residents, the owner of the property of the Midlothian Post
Office and the Kambourian Oriental Rug Co., the saw repair
operation, the owner of Lincoln Savings and Loan, etc. are all
opposed. They stated it is not compatible with the area. She
84-308
stated they are concerned that this operation will devalue their
property.
Mr. Sam Finch, a resident of Stonehenge, stated he agreed with
the points mentioned previously but also at the Planning
Commission, it was indicated that this site would be able to
accommodate an additional plant and this was the long range plan
He stated in addition to the traffic problems, the aesthetics
aspects, the environmental aspect in that the runoff from this
plant is into Falling Creek and if things are allowed to continu~
to go into this water supply, the more expensive it will be to
purify the water. He stated he was opposed to this request.
Mrs. Girone stated that this facility is an industrial use and ii
is incompatible with the residential and commercial use of Route
60. She stated Route 60 has been developed with retail stores
and commercial uses with the area behind the site being the
Stonehenge Subdivision. She stated she had concerns about land
use compatibility; traffic safety, regardless of the actual
number of trucks; slow moving traffic coming onto a high speed
road; dust and mud problems, etc. She stated she felt this would
be a good business but the site is not suitable and it would not
be zoning the land for a compatible use.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied
this request.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt this would be out of character in this
area and the land is valuable and maybe too valuable for this
type of operation. He stated he would welcome the operation in
Bermuda District.
84S039
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, E.G. HUGGINS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) plus a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to bulk
requirements on a 1.28 acre parcel fronting approximately 205
feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately
1,150 feet west of Tuxford Road. Tax Map 17-16 (1) Parcel 3
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Hubbard was present representing the applicant. He stated the
conditions were acceptable except that they would like %7 to
change the wording so that the decibel level of any loud speaker
paging system would not exceed the decibel level of Route 60.
Mr. Applegate stated he felt this was being requested because thc
paging system may not be heard over the traffic on Route 60. Mr~
Balderson stated the word "may" should be changed to "shall" in
Condition %7 but there have been complaints regarding other
paging systems in the area. He stated a paging system with the
beepers could be an alternative but staff would recommend the
condition remaining as is. Mr. Hubbard stated the potential
buyer would like to improve the property by cutting the trees to
a three foot level and dispose of them, but he would not disturb
the ground. Mr. Balderson stated that if this was just to cut
the trees it was within the parameters of the conditions. He
suggested that the condition remain the same but that the
applicant consult with Environmental Engineering regarding
84-309
their work on a step by step basis. Mr. Hubbard stated that was
acceptable. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated April 13, 1984, shall
be considered the Master Plan.
®
Access to this parcel shall be confined to the proposed
public road. Prior to obtaining a building permit, road and
drainage plans for the proposed public road shall be
submitted to Environmental Engineering and the VDH&T for
approval. This road shall have a minimum of fifty (50) feet
of right of way, dedicated through deed of dedication.
Also, if deemed necessary by the Utilities Department,
easements shall be dedicated along the right of way for
future utility construction.
This road shall be constructed with forty (40) feet of
pavement, face of curb to face of curb. If VDH&T does not
authorize relocation or reconstruction of the Route 60
crossover to align with the public road (as shown on the
Master Plan), the proposed public road shall be redesigned
to ~align with the existing crossover. The Planning
Commission may approve revisions to the Master Plan through
schematic plan review.
(Note: The Master Plan must be revised to comply with
parking setback requirements.)
Left turn lanes shall be constructed at the Route 60
crossover in accordance with VDH&T standards prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit.
®
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed
along Route 60 in accordance with VDH&T standards prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit.
Se
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be curbed and
guttered.
Lighting shall not exceed a height of forty (40) feet and
shall be positioned so as not to project into adjacent
properties or obstruct traffic along Route 60 or the
proposed public road.
e
e
10.
No loud speaker paging system shall be used.
A maximum of two (2) freestanding signs shall be permitted
along Route 60. These signs shall not exceed an aggregate
area of 100 square feet and a height of 35 feet. All other
signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for B-3
Districts except that the total aggregate sign area,
including the two (2) freestanding signs, shall not exceed
200 square feet. Signs shall be compatible with each other
in style, color and material. In conjunction with
plan review, a comprehensive sign package shall be
to the Planning Commission for approval.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a ten (10) foot
easement, measured from the Route 60 right of way for the
entire length of the property, shall be dedicated to and
the County of Chesterfield for a future water line.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
parking setback requirement along Route 60, shall be
approved. Within the southern fifteen (15) feet of this
84-310
twenty-five (25) foot setback, landscaping shall be ac-
complished to minimize the visibility of vehicle display and
parking areas. A landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.
11. An overall site landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. This plan shall include sufficient
landscaping to minimize the visibility of the service area
from adjacent properties and public roads.
12. The existing downstream drainage situation shall be analyzed
through Shenandoah Subdivision for proper design based on
higher density zoning upstream. (EE)
13. Existing single family homes located downstream shall have
the 100 year flood plain and/or backwater no higher than one
(1) foot below the finished floor elevation. (EE)
14. On-site retention shall be employed and shall have a releas,
rate no greater than the capacity of the existing pipe
located under Tuxford Road. (EE)
(Note: Retention devices must be designed and installed
prior to development of the property.)
15. Prior to any clearing, grading or other land disturbing
activities, a preconstruction meeting shall be held with
Environmental Engineering and subject to approval by
Environmental Engineering. (EE)
(Note: Prior to obtaining building permits, schematic plan~
must be approved by the Planning Commission.)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S040
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SAMUEL J. FINCH requested a
Conditional Use to permit an insurance office in an Agricultural
(A) District on a 0.81 acre parcel fronting approximately 100
feet on the west line of Branchway Road, approximately 850 feet
north of Southlake Boulevard. Tax Map 17-9 (2) Avon Estate, Lot
17 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Finc
was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was
no opposition present. Mr. Applegate inquired if this was
adjacent to the Salomonsky property. Mr. Balderson stated it was
not. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the
Board approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated February 6,
1984, shall be considered the plan of development.
2. Parking shall be relocated to the north side of the existing
structure.
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of six (6)
paved parking spaces for this use.)
3. The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk
requirements of the Office Business (O) District shall
apply.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel
84-311
84S041
In Bermuda Magisterial District, L.Co COLE AND A.B. SADLER, JR.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community Business
(B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 12.01 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,000 feet on the west line of Old Stage Road, als(
fronting approximately 110 feet on West Hundred Road, and located
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 116-8 (1) Parcel 28 and Tax Map 116-12 (1) Parcels 3, 5
and 15 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Sadler was present and requested that he be allowed four access
points rather than three in condition #2 for flexibility
in designing the area. Mr. Dodd stated he would agree to this
change if the applicant would make all efforts to utilize joint
driveways. Mr. Sadler agreed to do so.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along Route 10.
No facilities or driveways shall be permitted within this
buffer area. This buffer shall be landscaped with
ornamental shrubs. A landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted in conjunction with site plan
submission.
A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along Old
Stage Road. With the exception of four (4) access points to
Old Stage Road, if needed, there shall be no facilities
permitted in this buffer. These driveways shall be designed
to permit shared access, if possible. No access shall be
located closer than 175 feet from the southern right of way
line of Route 10 or closer than 200 feet from the northern
right of way of Route 898.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S042
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MARCO INVESTMENT, INC. requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 142 acre
parcel. This property fronts approximately 1,300 feet on the
east line of North Bailey Bridge Road in three separate
locations: (1) 400 feet north of Bailey Bridge Road; (2) 1,200
feet north of Twelveoaks Road; (3) 1,500 feet south of Route 360
Tax Map 62-4 (1) Parcel 16, and Tax Map 63-5 (1) Parcels 1 and 2
(Sheets 20 and 21).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of Residential (R-12) zoning on all property within 500
feet of Clifton Farms and Walnut Bower Subdivision and
Residential(R-9) of the remainder of the request site. He statec
the applicant has submitted proffers which are acceptable to
staff. Mr. Herbert Gill was present representing the applicant.
He stated they attempted to provide an orderly transition from
the R-15 in Clifton Farms Subdivision and described the area.
Mr. Donald Jones stated he was not opposed but concerned that the
lots should be larger than R-9. He stated he was also concerned
that he has a small farm and people moving in may Object to his
farm on which he keeps animals. He stated the
84-312
Planning Commission may impose a 50 ft. buffer zone for his farm
and he felt this was needed. He stated also there are other
farms in the area as well as a Ruritan community center and thei]
activities. Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission
indicated they would consider a buffer at the time of s~
review. Mr. Gill stated that they are not sure of the
engineering of the development at this time but when they present
the tentative plan they would consider this but the western part
of this parcel will probably be the last developed. He stated
this is a very narrow strip and 50 ft. could make a large
difference in how they can develop it. He stated when they do the
tentative, they will look at this property with regard to a
buffer. Mr. Mayes stated he felt tile buffer should be
at this time to protect the adjacent property. Mr. Gill stated
the applicant could not agree to a 50 ft. buffer at this time as
they are not sure of the engineering but they agree he should be
protected. Mrs. Girone stated there had been similar types of
transition areas in her district and the neighbors did complain.
Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Board should protect Mr. Jones'
property. Mr. Dodd stated he had a problem with tying it down
50 ft. as a condition. It was generally agreed that the Board's
intent could be designated in the minutes.
After further consideration of this matter, it was on motion of
Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board
approve this request for Residential (R-9) subject to acceptance
of the following proffers and with the understanding that it is
the Board's intent that a buffer of approximately 50 ft. be
provided for the Jones' property and the Tomahawk Ruritan Center:
The applicants agree that all lots within 500 ft. of
1, Clifton Farms, all lots within 500 feet of Lots 9-13
inclusive, Block C, Section 4, Clifton Farms, all lots
within 500 feet of Lots 17 and 18, Block D, Section 4,
Clifton Farms and all lots within 500 ft. of Parcel 4, on
County Tax Map Section 63-1 (1) shall be a minimum of 12,00C
sq. feet in area.
The applicants agree that all lots adjacent to Clifton
Farms, Section 1, and all lots adjacent to Lots 9-13,
inclusive, Block C, Section 4, Clifton Farms, Lot 17, Block
D, Section 4 and Parcel 4 on County Tax Map 63-1 (1) shall
have a minimum lot width of 90 ft.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S044
In Bermuda Magisterial District, EMERGENCY SPECIAL SERVICES, INC.
requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General
Industrial (M-2) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit use and bulk exceptions on a 2.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 150 feet on the east line of Old Stage Road,
approximately 430 feet north of Ware Bottom Spring Road. Tax Map
116-12 (1) Parcel 33 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Dean
Hawkins was present representing the applicant and stated the
conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Dean E. Hawkins, dated January 31, 1984, shall be
considered the plan of development.
Ail signs shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet
from the right of way line of Old Stage Road.
84-313
Prior to obtaining a building permit, thirty-five (35) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Old Stage
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County, free and
unrestricted.
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be located a minimum
of fifteen (15) feet from the right of way of Old Stage
Road.
Ail driveways and parking areas located in front of the
proposed building shall be paved, curbed and guttered.
remaining area shall be covered with 21 or 2lA stone.
The
An additional lane of pavement with curb and gutter shall be
installed to VDH&T standards along Old Stage Road, as deemed
necessary by VDH&T. This construction shall be completed
prior to issuance of any occupancy permit.
Ail outside storage shall be fenced and secured to prohibit
trespassing by unauthorized persons.
(Note: If the building is not constructed in the initial
phase, the Zoning Ordinance will require that the outside
storage area conform to the required thirty (30) foot side
yard and sixty (60) foot front yard setback requirements.)
A single entrance/exit, located along the northern property
line, shall be permitted to Old Stage Road.
®
In conjunction with schematic plan submission, a detailed
plan for storage and containment of hazardous waste shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. This
plan shall include a list of materials to be stored and
detailed chemical and soils engineering data relative to
their containment, should there be any on-site spill.
10. Public water and sewer shall be used.
11.
Whenever chemical or other hazardous waste is brought to the
site, the applicant shall notify the Chesterfield Fire
Department of the type and quantity of materials.
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit or performing
any site work, schematic plans must be approved by the
Planning Commission.)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S045
In Bermuda Magisterial District, GREY LINE AUTO PARTS, INC.
requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to Light
Industrial (M-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit use and bulk exceptions on a 1.5 acre parcel fronting
approximately 210 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis
Highway, approximately 160 feet south of Shield Road. Tax Map
98-14 (4) Shields Property, Block A, Lot A (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Charles Mills was present representing the applicant. There was
no opposition present. Mr. Dodd inquired about condition #2
regarding 45 ft. and if it was from the centerline. Mr.
Balderson stated it would be for the ultimate right of way for
the roadway according to the General Plan 2000.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
84-314
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan titled
"Distribution Warehouse," dated January 27, 1984, shall be
considered the Master Plan. The plan may be revised to
allow relocation of the proposed facilities should it be
necessary to relocate the proposed entrance to obtain
adequate sight distance.
Prior to the release of a building permit, forty-five (45)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of
Jefferson Davis Highway, shall be dedicated to and for the
County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
In conjunction with schematic plan submission, profiles
showing available sight distance along Jefferson Davis
Highway shall be submitted to the Planning Department. If
adequate sight distance, as required by VDH&T standards, is
not available, the applicant shall make necessary road
improvements to obtain adequate sight distance. Should road
improvements be necessary, plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review.
Se
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed
along Jefferson Davis Highway, per VDH&T specifications,
prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
following use and bulk exceptions shall be granted:
A maximum of 2,000 square feet of the proposed buildin¢
may be used for retail sales of automotive supplies.
A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50)
foot parking and driveway setback along Jefferson Davi~
Highway.
Ce
A seventy (70) foot exception to the 100 foot setback
along the western property line.
A twenty (20) foot exception to one of the twenty-five
(25) foot side yard setbacks for buildings.
Parking shall be provided at a ratio of one space for
each 200 square feet of retail space, plus one space
for each warehouse/office employee.
Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the number of
parallel parking spaces. If parallel parking spaces are
necessary, they shall be designated as employee spaces.
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved, curbed and
guttered.
The thirty (30) foot setback along the western property line
shall be maintained as a buffer area. This area shall be
landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for
Landscaped Buffers." A landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic
plans must be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Commission.)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he had conducted business
with the firm involved in the next case and excused himself from
the meeting for a possible conflict of interest in accordance
with the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act.
84-315
84S046
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PINEBARK ASSOCIATES requested
rezoning from General Industrial (M-2) to Light Industrial (M-l)
on a 3.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 630 feet on the sout~
line of Ware Bottom Spring Road, also fronting approximately 490
feet on Ramblewood Road, and located in the southeast quadrant o
the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 117-9 (1) Parcel 13
(Sheets 32 and 33).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Shelby Smith was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present.
motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request.
O~
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
84S049
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, R.L. BATES requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) and General Business (B-3) to
Community Business (B-2), Office ~Business (O) and Residential
(R-9) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and
bulk exceptions on a 40 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,680
feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, also fronting approx-
imately 300 feet on Gregory Pond Road, and located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map
50-1 (1) Parcels 2, 5 and 15 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim Hayes was
present representing the applicant. He stated in an effort to
prepare a plan to insure orderly development, they are proposing
some moderate density single family in the rear, some office
toward Route 360 and some commercial (B-2) along Route 360. He
stated they were trying to protect the integrity of the Gregory
Pond Road area which serves a basically residential area. He
stated there were some conditions added at the Planning
Commission at the applicant's request to insure the residential
integrity of the road. He stated Condition #13 revises the plan
to preclude the access as it originally was from Gregory Pond
Road back into the commercial area. He stated the site on the
corner would be restricted to office use only and have no access
to the commercial area but a single access off of Gregory Pond
Road and would be residential in design. He stated adequate
buffers have been included to insure compatibility.
Mr. Herman Austin, Jr. stated he was not opposed to the office
use but to the entrance off of Gregory Pond Road. He stated with
the property on Route 360 there are other alternatives to this
entrance. He stated the area by the pond is zoned much higher
than R-9 and this should be compatible.
Mrs. Helen Bailey stated she did not object to the business but
to the R-9 zoning as it should be higher. She stated the
intensity of people in the area will be hard on the pond which is
private, etc. She stated the area is swampy to the pond and to
get to Rockwood Park they will have to trespass. She stated the
R-9 zoning is incompatible. She stated she spoke for Mr. Kadosa
who is also opposed because of the density. She inquired if
there were any provisions made to buffer the pipe line and other
properties. She stated she did not feel there would be an area
adequate for recreation for the children and that the
84-316
area would become a slum. She stated she felt an industrial use
would be better than R-9 housing. She stated she also objected
to the automotive repair shop and a fast food shop which is
inconsistent with the neighborhood because the uses are too
intense for the area.
Mrs. Elizabeth Emerson stated she objected to Gregory Pond Road
being used as an entrance to the two buildings as the road is vez
narrow, there is a traffic problem getting onto Route 360, etc.
She stated she did not want this area to be disturbed in order to
accommodate this plan. She stated she had not been contacted
about a sewer or pipe line coming through her property and she
would not agree to it. She stated she also had dogs which
concerned her because although, they are chained, the children
may come into her yard and get bitten. She stated she felt the
development should be equal to Mayfair or Fernwood. She stated
she felt this proposal would not enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Bates stated he was disturbed because his neighbors are
disturbed which he could not understand as he has negotiated as
best he could regarding this property to see that the adjacent
property is properly protected. He stated he is not proposing
anything that would damage their property. He stated the
property has been zoned B-3. He stated he has proposed B-2 which
would eliminate the B-3 and things that would not be compatible.
He stated he disagreed that the residential development would be
a detriment to the area or devalue their property. He stated he
would guarantee that the buildings in the residential area would
be of higher value than those adjacent. He stated Gregory Pond
Road serves 7 families and the corner lot is 1% acres and that
road must go up Gregory Pond Road 300 feet before it can serve
the corner lot. He stated that would be more than adequate to
serve the property and the families. He stated he did not feel a
traffic problem would result from this corner lot. Mrs. Girone
inquired why they were planning to exit from Gregory Pond Road.
Mr. Balderson stated it was proposed to eliminate additional curb
cuts on Route 360 and Gregory Pond Road is an existing rural road
and the access is considerably removed from the residences. He
stated that the homes are patio homes with a 0 lot line and the
yards would each meet the requirements of R-9 zoning. Mrs.
Girone inquired if the road was up to the State Standards. Mr.
Balderson stated it was for rural road standards but the
applicant would improve it for 200 feet.
Mr. Dodd inquired if Mr. Bates could go to Residential R-12
rather than R-9. Mr. Bates stated they had considered townhouses
but decided on the proposed plan. Mr. Hayes stated they
discussed this but felt one structure with a common wall, housing
two families was best. He stated the gas line easement questions
were valid but they did not know what the gas company has on that
easement as to whether it can be fenced or not. He stated the
yards are adequate for children to play and with the Rockwood
Park there is no need for recreational areas. Mrs. Girone
inquired about the automobile repair as she thought that was B-3
zoning. Mr. Balderson stated this was an exception in the zoning
as well as a fast food restaurant. Mr. Hayes stated the office
site was proposed as they did not feel any B-2 or B-3 use would
be acceptable and this would isolate an office and it would be
compatible.
Mr. Applegate stated he was concerned with the Gregory Pond Road
access to the office originally, and the referencee to the 300
ft. away when staff addresses 200 ft. Mr. Hayes stated the
access for Gregory Pond Road condition was added at the Planning
Commission and it will be 200 ft. away from the intersection.
He explained the revised plan in detail which they proposed to
isolate the office use with no access back and forth. Mr.
Applegate stated if there would have been an access from Route
360, potentially it could have had all commercial traffic coming
onto Gregory Pond Road and they have isolated that to permit only
84-317
the people going to the office to use that road. He stated be
felt this was the best way to develop 'the corner. He stated that
he had discussed with the opposition the type of housing that is
proposed. He stated that he did have a concern that the homes
are attached and he would prefer that they be detached as he was
concerned they would be living in one side and renting the other
and this would preclude that. Mr. Balderson stated this could be
accomplished in this same application. Mr. Bates stated that
would be acceptable. Mr. Applegate stated he shared the concern
regarding the children walking through the gas line easement but
he did not know how that could be addressed.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the textual
statement and Master Plan, prepared by J.K. Timmons and
Associates, Inc., dated 2/16/84, shall be considered the
plan of development.
The R-9 development shall comply with all bulk requirements
of that District with the following exceptions:
ao
A fifteen (15) foot exception to the seventy-five (75)
foot lot width requirement at the building line.
e
Except as noted herein, the Office Business (O) tracts shall
conform to the bulk requirements of that District.
Except as noted here~n, the Community Business (B-2) tract
shall conform to the bulk requirements of that District.
The following use exceptions shall be granted in the B-2
tract:
A drive-in restaurant or an automotive service station
with automotive repair
Hotel or motel
Ail structures in the B-2 tract and O tract at the
intersection of Hull Street and Gregory Pond Roads shall be
architecturally compatible with each other. In conjunction
with the first schematic plan submission for either tract,
architectural renderings depicting typical styles and colors
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Commission.
No structure shall exceed a height of two (2) stories in the
western Office Business (O) tract.
Parking areas in the B-2 and 0 tracts shall have at least
ten (10) square feet of interior landscaping for every two
(2) parking spaces. Each landscaped area shall contain a
minimum of fifty (50) square feet, have a minimum dimension
of five (5) feet and shall contain at least one (1) tree
having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet with the
remaining area adequately landscaped with shrubs, ground
cover or other authorized landscaping material, not to
exceed three (3) feet in height. The total number of trees
shall not be less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or
fraction thereof, of the required interior landscaped area.
Landscaped areas shall be located to divide and break up the
expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks
shall not be calculated as required landscaped areas. A
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in con-
junction with schematic plan review.
84-318
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
The fifty (50) foot setback between Hull Street Road and the
proposed parking areas shall be planted with grass, ground
cover or other authorized landscaping material. In
addition, one (1) tree shall be planted for each fifty (50)
lineal feet of road frontage, or fraction thereof. This
landscaping requirement shall also apply to the fifteen (15)
foot setback along both sides of the new public road between
Hull Street Road and the pipeline easement. A landscaping
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review.
SIGNS - O and B-2 Tracts
ae
be
One freestanding sign, visible from Route 360, not to
exceed 100 square feet in area, shall be permitted
identifying this development and the tenants therein.
Building mounted signs shall be permitted provided the,
do not project above the roof line and the aggregate
area of the building sign does not exceed 0.5 square
feet for each one foot of building frontage.
Ce
Individual freestanding commercial and office buildings
shall be permitted one freestanding sign each, not to
exceed 5 feet in height and an area not to exceed 10
square feet. These signs shall be positioned and
located so theY are not legible from'Route 360. These
signs shall be similar to each other in size, shape,
and material.
de
Within the western O tract, a site directory sign may
be permitted provided it does not exceed a height of
eight (8) square feet, an aggregate area of thirty (30)
square feet, is not visible from Route 360 and does not
create a traffic obstruction.
ee
Signs may be illuminated, but may be luminous only if
the signfield is opaque with translucent letters.
Directional signs (entrance/exit, etc.) shall be
governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Prior to erection of any signs, a comprehensive sign
package to include colors, materials and typical
designs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval.
A fifty (50) foot buffer, exclusive of the pipeline
easement, shall be maintained along the northern, eastern
and western boundaries of the O and B-2 tracts. These
buffers shall be landscaped in accordance with "Minimum
Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." Installation of these
buffers may occur in conjunction with phasing of de-
velopment. In conjunction with schematic plan review, a
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. This
condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the
time of schematic plan review.
Prior to release of a building permit for the office site a~
the intersection of Gregory Pond and Hull Street Roads, a
minimum of thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from
the centerline of Gregory Pond Road, shall be dedicated to
and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
The parking lot layout of the Office Business (0) tract
located along Gregory Pond Road shall be designed to
preclude vehicular traffic between this tract and the
tract to the west.
84-319
14.
A single access shall be permitted to Gregory Pond Road
located a minimum of 200 feet from the right of way of Route
360.
15. Other than the two (2) access points shown on the Master
Plan, there shall be no other access to Route 360. In
conjunction with the first schematic or tentative
subdivision plan submission, profiles and documentation
shall be submitted to the Planning Department and VDH&T
verifying adequate sight distance along Route 360. (Note:
It may be Decessary to reconstruct portions of Route 360 to
obtain adequate sight distance.)
16. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
along Route 360. This construction may be phased if a
phasing plan is submitted to the Planning Department and
VDH&T for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
review.
17.
18.
19.
Turn lanes shall be constructed at crossovers, as deemed
necessary by VDH&T.
No access shall be permitted to the proposed private
driveway serving the shopping center within 200 feet of the
right of way of Route 360.
The proposed public road. shall have a minimum right of way
width of seventy (70) feet between Route 360 and the
northernmost entrance to the office tract. The right of way
may then taper to a minimum width of sixty (60) feet through
the rest of the business zoning. All other rights of way
shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. Construction
within the seventy (70) foot right of way shall consist of
two (2) twenty-four (24) foot lanes, face of curb to face of
curb, separated by a median. There shall be no median
breaks within 200 feet of the Route 360 right of way. There
shall be no access to this roadway within 200 feet of the
Route 360 right of way. Construction within the sixty (60)
foot right of way shall consist of forty (40) feet of
pavement, face of curb to face of curb. Construction within
the fifty (50) foot right of way shall meet VDH&T
Subdivision Standards.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S050
In Matoaca Magisterial District, GUSTAV AND JERALINE M. KORIATH
request rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a
14.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 161 feet on the east line
of Happy Hill Road at its intersection with Marobrith Drive. Tax
Map 149-2 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 41).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. John Bernard was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd inquired if public sewer were to be used as he thought
the sewer line was only several parcels to the north. Mr.
Bernard stated the parcel to the north has a private sewer s
he thought and was not sure where it connected to the public
sewer system. Mr. Balderson stated this could be addressed in the
subdivision review process. Mr. Dodd encouraged the use of
public sewer in the area because of the terrain. Mr. Bernard
stated he would look into this. On motion of Mr. Mayes, se
by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84-320
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
adjourned at 4:50 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on June 13, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
~ ,/H~'rry ~. ~aniel
Chairman
84-321